Related content

But Stoke-on-Trent City Council says the proposals will 'weaken the city's representation' and 'short change' its residents.

Leader Mohammed Pervez will now write to the Government outlining the authority's opposition.

Councillor Olwen Hamer, cabinet member for transformation and resources, said: "We welcome changes which no longer divide the Mother Town of Burslem.

"However, the council is concerned by the proposed West Staffordshire constituency which lacks any sense of cohesion and is spread across three council areas.

"The council believes the Boundary Commission should use the existing council boundaries.

"The leader will submit a response based on these concerns, together with an alternative to minimise disruption."

Councillor Martin Garner, member for Goldenhill and Sandyford, said: "When I first saw the initial proposals last year and the suggested Kidsgrove and Tunstall constituency, I thought they had come up with the most ridiculous and nonsensical constituency possible for the people of Stoke-on-Trent.

"I now realise I was wrong as they've surpassed themselves with their idea of a West Staffordshire constituency.

"It completely lacks any sense of cohesion and combines disparate communities such as Weston Coyney in the city together with areas such as Stone and Audley.

"If Staffordshire County Council is included, the proposed West Staffordshire seat covers four local authority areas. It's clearly impractical and unworkable." Mr Garner proposed including Newcastle's Newchapel in Stoke-on-Trent North, which already includes Kidsgrove, to bring up to an acceptable size.

Tristram Hunt said: "I'm not against a review because there is disparity in the system, but this is all driven by the coalition's desire to reduce the number of MPs and that's why you end up with crazy seats like West Staffordshire.

"I've always said that in modern politics there is no such thing as a safe seat for life and this proves that."

The recommendations would also see Staffordshire Moorlands return to a single constituency, while the Newcastle seat would stay broadly in line with the borough council's boundaries.

Proposals to reduce MPs' numbers from 650 to 600 are unlikely to ever become law as the Liberal Democrats withdrew support

Comments

Shame I couldn't get to the meeting as I was confused about the outcome after watching the webcast.
http://tinyurl.com/bupdv78
Given the constraints the BCE had to work under, I endorse their revised proposals:
http://tinyurl.com/b6d8dsu
That's not to say I agree with the constraints, but these were put into the act of parliament by the MPs collectively. With increasing population it doesn't make sense to reduce the number of elected representatives but the law forces the BCE to do this. And it would be better to use the current ward boundaries but again the act of parliament steers them to use the 2010 ones. If the council want to put forward anything with a chance of being considered by BCE they would have to use the required ward boundaries.
Olwen Hamer and Martin Garner may moan about West Staffordshire spreading over 3 local authority areas and it is a bit messy, but they have not come up with a better alternative. The Labour party suggestion also combined areas, for example their SOT North suggestion took in parts of Staffordshire Moorlands as well as SOT and NUL. Martin Garner's suggestion for SOT North is all very well but he needs to consider knock on effects and how he can arrange the rest of the city within the specifications required by law. Olwen Hamer admits the revised proposals are far better in keeping Burslem together. They also better mend the split in NUL in the initial proposals.
I would be genuinely interested in seeing the leader and cabinet's alternative suggestion if they come up with one which meets the required criteria.
NUL council considered this:
http://tinyurl.com/d58hoz8
but don't yet know what they decided as minutes not published at the time of this comment.

Can't see ANYTHING that Tristram Hunt has done for the city and I don't think we would miss him. And it sits ill in the mouths of our councillors to say that it would short change the people of the city - they've been doing just that for years!

But Stoke-on-Trent City Council says the proposals will 'weaken the city's representation' and 'short change' its residents. Stoke-on-Trent City Council really do take the cities population to be imbeciles. This council which was elected by a small minority of voters have been short changing us for years. And as for weakening our representation, how much weaker can you get than a bunch of inept sycophants living like parasites on the back of the hard working tax payers and attacking the weak and unfortunate of the city.

Government both national and local is too large, it needs to be reduced. I ask the question do we get value for money from the current situation, the answer must be a resounding NO.
WE pay for them to sit on the council, sit in Westminster, and sit in europe all on what some may say is a good rate of pay with of course those tax free expenses. Yes we need government but not at the current size and cost.